gays confessing

gays confessing cartoon by nakedpastor david hayward

click to shop til ya drop

Whenever I post a cartoon that reveals my advocacy for the LGBT community and for marriage equality, I usually get comments that if I advocate that, then I’m also advocating pedophilia, rape, bestiality, sex slavery and more. Ya.

It shouldn’t come as any surprise that Sandy Rios of Fox News thinks this way, as well as Dr. Erwin Lutzer, a Chicago pastor she interviewed. Take a listen. It’s only a couple of minutes. She compares gay love to the kidnapper/rapist Ariel Castro’s rape and torture of his victims. Ya.

The argument goes like this: the bible tells us what is sexually right. It also tells us what love is. A pedophile might say he loves his victim. But that’s not biblical. So when a gay person says he loves his partner, that is the same kind of love the pedophile is speaking about because it’s not biblical. Therefore gay love is wrong. Ya.

Have these people ever heard the word “consensual” when it comes to love? No.

Lutzer also talks about the confusion we are passing on to our children because of same-sex marriage, etcetera. Perhaps the confusion is coming from trying to chain our children to an ancient worldview, sexuality and morals?

He also talks about what true love is according to the bible and the traditional church. But many people don’t see the bible or the church as a shining example of what true love is.

I suggest that it is not only fruitless but unnecessary for the LGBT community to go to the bible for chapter and verse advocacy or support. Unless we are using the broad hermeneutic of love and justice! Then one can find total advocacy and support for equality, freedom and love.

Like this cartoon: there’s no bible anywhere in the picture. It doesn’t need to be.

About David Hayward

David Hayward runs the blog nakedpastor as a graffiti artist on the walls of religion where he critiques religion… specifically Christianity and the church. He also runs the online community The Lasting Supper where people can help themselves discover, explore and live in spiritual freedom.

  • Pubilius

    This is beautiful, thank you!

  • klhayes

    Consent does not matter to people with this mindset. If two unmarried people or two of the same sex engage in consensual sex, it is sinful regardless of the “consent” part. And anyone who knows the Old Testament knows that when the Israelites were capturing land, God was telling them to take the women “that did not know man” in most cases. It was God legitimizing rape.

    I actually saw a comment on Facebook where someone suggested that a “non-believer” had no right to question whether or not God approved of rape. It’s really scary.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kimberlyknight/ Kimberly

    PLUS the bible upholds rape as one way a rapist can end up with a wife. PLUS the bible lifts up as righteous a man who would offer up his virgin daughter for rape. So, if we are going to talk about biblical sexual morals…

  • Caryn LeMur

    David: great cartoon! And you highlighted the very important term ‘consensual’ – well done!

    May I offer that we can go to the Bible for Biblical support. Our support is strongly shown in the entire Book of Galatians. We just replace the terms “circumcision” with “opposite sex marriage”, and the terms “uncircumcision” with “same sex marriage”…. then, the incredible message of the across-the-board principles of God’s ‘new covenant’ are translated to our current culture.

    “For in Christ Jesus, neither opposite-sex marriage nor same-sex marriage matter at all; but what matters is your faith expressing itself through love.”

    “For, when Peter withdrew from the ‘same-sex married couples’, he was totally wrong…. even Barnabas was carried away by this hypocrisy! …. If righteousness can come by adhering to the Law of Moses, then the Messiah died in vain!…”

    You get the idea. Try substituting the words. It will stagger your mind to see how radical the Gospel message was between the Partial Keepers of the Law of Moses and the Gentiles/Slaves/Women of Paul’s day… and now, how radical the message of Christ is now, between the Partial Keepers of the Law of Moses versus the Remarried/Same Sex Married/Women of our day.

    Much love in Christ always and unconditionally; Caryn

  • http://twitter.com/twbtwb Tim Wilson-Brown

    Oh, Kimberley, you forgot polygamy, levirate marriage, at least three different perspectives on divorce, and Paul prioritising singleness over marriage. (And I’m sure I’ve left some out…)

    What a series of diverse views!

  • Jeff Hamlin

    The same people who speak out so much against gay marriage are mostly people who do nothing to uphold heterosexual marriage themselves, what with the high rates of divorce and remarriage/adultery in the church and all,

  • R Vogel

    First let me say, great stuff David! I am new to Patheos, and I find both your and Kimberly’s posts (who I am glad to see posted below) very encouraging.
    Many years ago I was challenged in a Philosophy class in college whether G*d loves something because it is good, or if something is good because G*d loves it. This has always stuck with me. The first invited me understand the principle that would make something beloved by G*d, the second seemed arbitrary and capricious. In discussions I have had people espousing a ‘traditional view’ of the Bible, I personally try to understand why they think something is good, and they generally just look to the Bible to tell them what is good. (except for the whole shellfish thing, because shellfish is yummy). That is a key difference that unfortunately makes the conversation generally fruitless.

  • JoeNCA

    “Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” -Romans 13:10

  • http://www.facebook.com/ben.tousey Ben Tousey

    The bible is like Dick Cheney’s information gathering program. If you torture it enough, you can get it to say whatever you want it to say. The bible doesn’t even agree with itself on any of these issues.
    The real issue is really quite simple. Those who advocate the hardest FOR the bible, are those who know the LEAST about it. That’s why they can say these things without irony.

  • Brigitte

    Just because something is in a story that’s told in the Bible, it does not make it a rule, good example or something worth emulating. They are supposed to be true stories: WARTS and all! There is no whitewashing kind of holiness there. This is why many of us trust it.

  • Brigitte

    Whether or not the Israelite were supposed to marry women of different nationality and faith was always a big debate. Almost something akin to the gay marriage debate. Marrying a woman outside the nation would often be expected to lead to a falling away from Yahweh. After the Babylonian captivity, the rule about this became very strict.

  • Brigitte

    Ben, I recommend a good, new study Bible. I think the principle of the “perspicuity” (clearness) of the Bible can be upheld. It is not so dense and contradictory. My denomination has come out with one recently highlighting in the notes the law, gospel points and the teachings of the Lutheran reformers. I have not read all of it yet. My husband and I are taking up book by book reading out loud in the evening. (This is one thing I like about getting older. You can read out loud to each other as much as you want and no one gets impatient.) http://www.cph.org/p-18704-the-lutheran-study-bible-duotone-burgundy-luthers-rose.aspx?SearchTerm=Lutheran%20Study%20bible

  • Ithel

    What Kimberly is referring to isn’t just a story. It’s ostensibly God himself instructing the Israelites on how to deal with rape. Deut. 22: 28-29. These are God’s rules. Surely, Brigitte, you are aware of this?

  • Brigitte

    Alright, Deut. 22: 28-29 in my Bible says: “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.” My study notes say: Seizes her implies rape. And: Since the woman is not betrothed, there is no adultery and hence no death penalty. The man is punished by a bride-price. not divorce her–thus providing for the woman and any child from this union.

    Nowhere in this is there a condoning of the matter, only a punishment for the man who violates and provision for the woman and child. This begs the question of how we would love to be married to our rapist, though it does not say here that she must marry him. The idea is that she not be abandoned now that this has happened and it can’t be undone. In any case, it is an option for her. Nowadays we have girls raped and the pictures posted on the internet for all to see until kingdom come and the laundry aired to the whole world, the shame and violence driving some to various actions including suicide. Unfortunately, there have always been such men around.

    The other day I was on a long drive and listening to CBC where there was an interview with a woman whose ex (not a rapist) was taking out his rage on her (a young university professor) by posting all the intimate pictures he had of her on some site dedicated to such revenge. Trying to do something about this now that all the pictures are out and salvaging her professional reputation on top it has consumed her last few years. She is in the process of trying to get this through some courts and getting such sites banned. Fact is, though, that formally or informally such abuse or at minimum neglect would be hard to prevent… It seems to me that the Deuteronomy passage is clearly trying to prevent additional collateral damage.

  • tom sellier

    By bringing it into your church you prove yourself to be a heretic. I’m not surprised you did not say in Christianity.

  • Ithel

    The passage permits the rapist to purchase his victim from her father. God could have chosen to challenge the attitude prevailing at the time that rape victims are somehow impure and undesirable to prospective husbands. He could have said, for instance, that the rapist must pay the bride price and a set amount the rest of his life, even should she choose to marry someone else. Instead, the text supports that attitude that she is damaged goods…and the father must be compensated for damage to his property. Whereas we would never give a rapist the option of living with his victim, God does indeed condone this outcome, and the victim’s consent isn’t even under consideration. To me it is clear evidence that either God is not good or that men have put their own words in his mouth.

  • Brigitte

    The passage simply obligates the rapist not to abandon the woman or her family. It sets a punishment that does not prevent a future family from forming where he can support the woman and child. We cannot expect a document from nearly stone age times to get into every paragraph that we would like to see today with the kind of justice appratus we have in place nowadays keeping an army of lawyers busy and employed.

  • Ithel

    You are right. We cannot base our moral system on a stone-age god.

  • Brigitte

    The people are stone age, the God is eternal. In a few years, the 21st century is stone age and they will wonder about our thoughts and language. (Goodness gracious I have some young-ish people visiting at my house they have never heard of the song “The house of the Rising Sun”. I thought that song would last forever. — But brothels will be with us forever. Ithel, do you have any thoughts how we should approach this legally? Obligate every John to pay sustenance for the rest of his life…? Make sure the woman are not seen as damaged goods…? Make him take one home and look after all her needs? )

  • René

    It’s shocking to read this .. It’s … It just feels surreal ! Are there really people that think like that Doctor and journalist I think when I read it.. then it pops into my head :yes there are, and I’ve heard the remarks myself as well from people, in the streets and so on. It just feels like a sci fi movie, a depressing one at that.

    When will we learn to uphold the first and only real law of life : Love each other.Why all of this human on human judgement ! For a lot of so called Christians, Jesus His Death and Rebirth was in vain.I’m confused about this world and it saddens me.

    Fear still rules most of us.This here thing effected me so much already, and I haven’t even seen the interview .. I did that on purpose btw, and I’m glad I elected to ignore it..

  • René

    For clarity : I am not gay myself, I’m human, like every thinking and creating creature on this planet.

  • Al Cruise

    You keep wanting to make absolutes here, your right everyone else is wrong. David is right when suggests the Bible is about the broad hermeneutic of love and justice. Here is a book you should read, when it comes to making absolutes about a group who offend you or you think you need to fix.It involves the Lutheran Church. Something the Church still has not really acknowledged.

    http://www.amazon.com/Betrayal-Churches-Holocaust-Robert-Ericksen/dp/0800629310

  • René

    “men have put their own words in his mouth.”

    I’m going with that one ^^
    Thumbs up girl !

  • Brigitte

    I just recommended a study Bible, Al. I believe that might be permissible. The “absolute” I am trying to promote here is that with a little effort, the Bible does hang together, but most people don’t even read it through, I would venture.

    Since you have an interest, I will just say that I have read and written quite a bit about the 19th century philosophies and 20th century promotion of social darwinism and mythologies, and issues related to Holocaust. National Socialism hated both Judaism and Christianity. — Also I grew up a child of refugees and in post war Germany and, therefore, have a few first hand stories and experiences. If you like we can unpack all that somewhere, (probably not here).

  • Al Cruise

    Read the book.

  • Brigitte

    That’s a cheap answer.

  • Brigitte

  • Gary

    And the “eternal” God (as portrayed in the bible) is immoral. If He is eternal as you suggest…and the bible is accurate, then God is clearly an immoral being.

    I’m going with the men putting words in God’s mouth as well.

  • Brigitte

    You go for it, Gary. Imagine you are walking in the desert with a bunch of people and you need to make a law about what to do in case a guy raped a girl. Make it about as short as what we have in Deuteronomy here. How would it read?

  • Al Cruise

    National Socialism, Darwinism, etc, are just easy scapegoats.

  • Brigitte

    National Socialism and Social Darwinism, Eugenics, etc. were hugely powerful ideologies in their time.

  • Gary

    It sure as hell would not read like it does in Deuteronomy. Why? Read Ithel’s explanation again. It was excellent.

  • Brigitte

    With a propaganda machine to match and cruel and babaric intimidation techniques.

  • Brigitte

    So it would read something like: when a guy rapes a girl, make him pay the rest of his life and don’t make the girl marry him and don’t treat her like damaged goods. She should marry some other guy for love. — Nice, but vague. What kind of help or justice will she actually be able to get. Who will enforce the monthly payments? We can’t get deadbeat dads to pay up now.

  • Kiwibloke

    What kind of “love” are we talking about here? If a man or woman “loves” another then at what stage does that “love” become “unacceptable” by my Father’s ‘law’ system?? And if my Father made Man and Women then why didnt he just create Man or Women? Maybe we are missing a real ‘purpose’ here? Stop arguing about ‘Love’ – for God and disciples have told us what love really is? The reason we are in such a mess is simple – we really dont understand love – like He meant it? We love Sin more? Xn and not Gay – so what!

  • http://demiurgiclust.net shelly

    The passage simply obligates the rapist not to abandon the woman or her family.

    …by forcing her to marry the man who violated her. Because women were property, not people with agency and choice.

  • klhayes

    Having to get married to your rapist is “preventing” collateral damage? Maybe Ariel Castro should have married all of his victims while he held them captive to prevent further collateral damage. Maybe they need to be focusing on being thankful there were not pictures of them on the internet. The rapist does not care about his victim’s reputation, internet or no internet.

  • klhayes

    I would not want my daughter’s rapist to take care of me and the rest of the family.

  • klhayes

    What does that have to do with consent?

  • mrichardson84

    Right on. By today’s standards, that requirement is completely unacceptable, and the woman would be punished for the man’s wrongdoing by being forced to live with him the rest of her life. Rape apologists would scream for joy if this antiquated law were still relevant.

  • Gary

    You sure come up with a lot of shit to justify immoral behavior…all because your god supposedly said it.

    LMAO

  • Gary

    Indeed. And lest we forget god supposedly tells the Israelites to slaughter every man woman and child multiple times. Except of course for the times he tells them they can keep every woman who has not known a man and take them home to be their sexual playthings. Picture the scene. In the midst of enemy conquerors slaughtering everyone you know and love (including children) the women are stripped naked and have their genitals examined to see if they are a virgin. If you are one of the unlucky 13 or 14 year old virgin girls…you likely just saw your mother, father, and little brother killed before your eyes and the monsters who did this thing now haul your ass home to be repeatedly raped for their sexual gratification. And they tell you that “their god” proclaimed this to be ok.

    It truly amazes me that anyone can declare this is right just because the bible says god said it was ok.

  • Caryn LeMur

    Kiwi: I think I see your point. Jesus stated that any man or woman that married a divorced person lives in adultery, and He stated that in no uncertain terms [Mark 10:10-12].

    So, using the eternal words of Jesus, any marriage to a divorced man or woman is love equal to the depth of sinful adultery. Since ‘adultery’ is spoken against time and time again by ‘my Father’s law system’, it follows that any church that (a) married a divorced man or woman; or (b) accepted their marriage (or accepted their service in the church); would be participating in the sin of adultery. Perhaps the church could allow their attendance IF they agree to abstain, seek a divorce, and remain celibate – after all, we need those ‘fruits of repentance’, yanno?

    Good point. Glad you are not thinking of James 3:17. I think that verse is simply not part of the canon of scripture. And that whole chunk of James 2:1-13 – surely that is simply not part of God’s scripture, by any means. And that I Cor 13 stuff about defining ‘love’ – yes, like you, I think we need to just go back to the whole physical body difference definition.

    yep. God told us what love is. Let us just go back to the Garden of Eden’s definition. yep. Marry and multiply. Great purpose. Who needs fig leaves? We were created to ‘do it’. By the way, just wondering, after menopause, do you think women have any purpose?… yep?

    In all satire; Caryn

  • wanderer

    Oh, so Ben just needed a NEWER version of the bible….I see….

  • Gary

    And I am not surprised you did stay tom.

    BTW – MUCH of Christianity embraces homosexuality as acceptable before God I love it when you fundies think you get to define the entire faith for everyone. LOL

  • Amy Mitchell

    Oh, so it’s not a punishment for a woman to have to marry her rapist? Wow, that’s a sick perspective. Gee, we’ll punish the bastard who did this to her by making him marry her so he can do it more conveniently in the future! Sounds good to me.

  • Amy Mitchell

    Also, “Go marry a prostitute who will cheat on you (because those prostitutes really love their jobs and also are dirty whores) as a metaphor, since proving My point is more important than mutual respect and trust.”

  • Amy Mitchell

    So much of the Bible just pisses me right off, starting with the horrendous laws and commandments concerning women. No better than cattle, it would appear.

  • Al Cruise

    There were 60 million people in Germany at that time, 40 million Protestants, 20 million Catholics, 60 million total Christians.

  • Gary

    I know. I grew up defending this shit…no more.

    I have heard a wise saying that I believe applies very well to much of the bible.

    “To a people of war, their god will be a god of war. To a people of peace, their god will be a god of peace.”

  • Brigitte

    It does not say that she has to marry him. It says that he is obligated to look after her.

  • Brigitte

    Yes, and there are 300 million citizens in the US and they can’t stop from shooting each other and putting each other behind bars, and ruining the world banking system with dubious methods and instruments and wreck people’s retirement savings all over the world, not to mention the high abortion rate, murder rate and consumption of resources rate… It’s just a disorganized disaster, as opposed to the Nazi’s who had an organized disaster. Let’s confess everybody else’s sins. It is so convenient.

  • Brigitte

    Disqus don’t work. What a mess. They are a disaster with the voting up and down. Nothing flows. It allows in the end only for everyone to spew their favorite lines and no real discussion. It makes you want to go back to good old blogger blogs.

  • Brigitte

    Doesn’t work. Sorry.

  • Gary

    I’ve never shot anybody. How about you Al?

  • aar9n

    Do not rape people. Women are not property. Thus says the lord.

    Brigitte, I don’t think you understand the phrase “and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days”.

    This means that the rape victim is given to the rapist as his wife. She does not have a say in the matter. Unlike today, women were given in marriage; they didn’t have a choice. Women in those times, and in the bible, were treated as property. This is why in the Ten Commandments it states: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

    A wife is in the same category as your donkey.

    A women was considered property of a man, who was either her husband or her father.

  • aar9n

    “she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.”

    This law, btw, is still enforced in some third world countries. And oh do the women LOVE it.

  • Brigitte

    You always have the best responses, Gary. I hand it to you.

  • Brigitte

    He may not divorce her, just reiterates that the whole arrangement is for her protection. In India, of course, they would just burn the bride or kill the girl on the bus. No problem. It’s probably in line with her karma or social standing.

  • Brigitte

    No doubt Ariel Castro was mostly inspired by Deuteronomy.

  • Brigitte

    I am afraid that the definition of a prostitute is that she sleeps with many people, otherwise she would be a former prostitute.

  • Al Cruise

    Exactly. Now we agree. The way we use the Bible has failed. We don’t need “another” study Bible. It won’t make a bit difference. Just another source to demonize people.

  • Al Cruise

    Nope.

  • aar9n

    Brigitte, what is in between “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver” and “because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.”

    Can you write that part out for me, please?

    Do I really need to mention that a husband had sexual rights to his wives (with or without their consent, see Abraham and hagar).

    Mutual consent to marriage is a modern practice.

  • Gary

    For all your proclamation of knowing the scripture so well…you sure seem to have fucked up this passage.

  • Brigitte

    I have never claimed to know it better than anyone else; I only protest those who say it is obscure and contradictory. And I certainly don’t have my head in Deuteronomy, though I am reading it right now to see what the fuss is about. Last I finished everything by Solomon. He seems to have lots of thoughts on love, marriage and passion. I can’t quite get the picture of him. It seems as a king he thinks he has the right to many wives or else concubines. He seems to have not curbed himself very much. He got the country into debt with all his building projects, and so on. This may be another example of where a story is really not a precept because in other places Solomon advocates some strict thoughts on fidelity. Not everything, or even not much that is pictured in the Bible is virtuous behaviour.

    When we read Deuteronomy, as far as I have got with it just now, it seems that quite a few passages are just placing limits on bad behavior.– Just like when Jesus says, you should have one wife and not divorce her. And they say to him: well what about before, you got to divorce your wife. And he says, well, that was just because of the hardness of your hearts. And they guys just kind of crumble.

    There were certain things that were more primitive remedies for more primitive times and in the context of the nations among which they lived. Some things we know better now and with Jesus the law is finished anyways, except for the moral law and love. So we need to think about what is moral and in-line with the basic 10 commandments.

    The law of a country and a nation can vary and though the laws on a certain subject, say speed limits, may vary, none endorse speeding and different regulations to mitigate the problem can be considered… The sayings around sex vary but they provide a kind of speed limit.
    So, this passage about the raped woman just tries to put a limit on the damage in the context of that world. It does not suggest that someone go out and do it.

    That women got out and got themselves all kinds of rights through protests is only a recent phenomenon and falls together somewhat with the possibility of birth control. When women tended to get pregnant from sexual activity, it was always of uppermost important that someone was a good provider. It still really is, but if things are not very convenient people have a pill or abortion or get pushed into it. So nowadays, if such a situation was made known, everyone would say: just get an abortion and get on with your life.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ben.tousey Ben Tousey

    Actually, Brigitte, I have read the bible… cover to cover… several times. And I continue to read the bible. I thoroughly enjoy the bible… the same way I enjoy the Odyssey, the same way I enjoy the Epic of Gilgamesh. These are profound works of literature, which tell us about the people who wrote them. But I would never base my life on them, and I would never try to make them true in our twenty-first century understanding of science, medicine, history, and technology.

    It’s also true that the more you read the bible, the more you start to see the holes in it. On most issues, the bible doesn’t even agree with itself. It starts at the Beginning… two stories of creation, and each one different, and contradictory.

    When you read stories like Sodom and Gomorrah you see a god who was willing to destroy hundreds of men and women and children without mercy, but Lot is considered okay even though he offered up his two virgin daughters to be raped… and then he would later have incest with both of them.

    We have a story of a man being spit out of a whale into a town that is landlocked and nowhere near an ocean.

    We have a political struggle going on between the Mushite Priests and Aaronid Priest and who had the right to represent Israel and make sacrifices. You’ve got Solomon, called the wisest man alive, and yet he so thoroughly attack the tribes of the north that immediately after his death, they seceded.

    This is what makes the bible fascinating… the politics… the fight for the right to represent god (which meant power in those days too), and the fight over which god got to be god.

    I can find scripture to support anything I want to say, which explains a lot of cults. The bible says what I want it to say and the fact that the bible is still “relevant” twenty-five hundred years after it was written, shows humanities inability to evolve.

  • Gary

    Gary stands on the edge of the precipice of Brigitte’s mind and stares intently into the chasm…straining in vain to see anything resembling form or definition.

  • Brigitte

    When you tell me these kinds of things, Gary, I always imagine that other people have said that to you. Like when you said: “You are too lazy to find it for yourself”, I imagine that your wife says that sort of thing to you. When you say: “You need professional help”, which you have said to me more than once, I imagine that lots of people have said that to you. Etc.

  • Gary

    The problem Brigitte, when you go on these long philosophical journeys, is that you show not the slightest ability to pay attention to (or even comprehend it seems) the very valid points being made by all the commenters who have attempted to reason with you. This is what fundamentalism does. It says “Damn the torpedoes” of logic and human decency…the bible MUST be right at any cost.

  • Gary

    It really cracks me up when you seek to correct someone by providing a “definition” and it is painfully apparent that you have not even bothered to look it up.

  • Amy Mitchell

    See Hosea 1:2. God tells him to marry a prostitute as a metaphor.

  • Amy Mitchell

    Um, no. This was God’s command to Hosea, that he marry a prostitute who was going to cheat on him as a metaphor for Israel’s disobedience. So glad you know so much about Scripture, though. Thanks for schooling me without bothering to find out what I was referring to. And also for equating rape victim with being a former prostitute. Keepin’ it classy there.

  • tom sellier

    Gary you have to get out more. Your equivalent of women studying their vagina’s is not good for your critical thinking skills.

  • Gary

    I’m afraid you lost me on this one Tom. I made no reference to “women studying their vagina’s”. Perhaps you need to demonstrate some basic paying attention skills?

  • Don Lynch

    I agree with Sandy. Once you erase that differentiates male and female, the next differentiation is between human and animal. The image of God is revealed in marriage, God established it that way “from the beginning of creation” according to the Creator, Jesus Christ.

  • disqus_cfBevsr42L

    Up until recently, raping a girl who had turned down your proposal of matrimony, was an accepted way to secure her hand. She now has nothing to negotiate with. and boom! dowry is yours!

  • disqus_cfBevsr42L

    stone him. that short and sweet. sexual immoraility in women was punished with stoning, why not rape?

  • disqus_cfBevsr42L

    yeah, cuz once they are married, it isnt rape anymore……..right?!?!?

  • Guest

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nakedpastor/2014/01/the-church-and-the-bible-as-an-old-married-couple/old-church-and-bible/
    “She pretends to listen but she’s going to do what she wants anyway.”

    I understand what you say about the sexual morals of the Bible. But, in my opinion, the western Christianity has a serious problem on the field of ethics (and not only on the field of sexual ethics). It differs from the ethics of atheistic humanism only in its symbols and some phrases but not in its substance. Perhaps, not even in its essence.

    One could say, I’m complaining about the gradually liberalisation of Christian ethics. I’m definitively not. Nor I am dreaming about a narrow-minded sect with moral snobism. But I have the impression, this “enlightened” Christianity is not able any more to formulate its genuine Christian ethics on biblical grounds. It utilitises its symbols to fortify and adopt movements and ideologies from outside. And it is training itself to “master the Scripture”: to say explicitly ‘No!’ to the Scriptures when they become incompatible with the ethical measures of our days.

    I know very well that we can’t just turn ourselves to the past and read the Scripture literally. On the other hand, it can’t be the solution just to ignore and censor the Bible.

    Probably I’m not the only one who is starving for a fresh reading.

  • András Török

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nakedpastor/2014/01/the-church-and-the-bible-as-an-old-married-couple/old-church-and-bible/
    “She pretends to listen but she’s going to do what she wants anyway.”

    I understand what you say about the sexual morals of the Bible. But what then? How do we read the Bible properly? Where do we gain our principals for sexual ethics form?

    In my opinion, the western Christianity has a serious problem on the field of ethics (and not only on the field of sexual ethics). It differs from the ethics of atheistic humanism only in its symbols and some phrases but not in its substance. Perhaps, not even in its essence.

    One could say, I’m complaining about the gradually liberalisation of Christian ethics. I’m definitively not. Nor I am dreaming about a narrow-minded sect with moral snobism. But I have the impression, this “enlightened” Christianity is not able any more to formulate its genuine Christian ethics on biblical grounds. It utilitises its symbols to fortify and adopt movements and ideologies from outside. And it is training itself to “master the Scripture”: to say explicitly ‘No!’ to the Scriptures when they become incompatible with the ethical measures of our days.

    I know very well that we can’t just turn ourselves to the past and read the Scripture literally. On the other hand, it can’t be the solution just to ignore and censor the Bible.

    Probably I’m not the only one who is starving for a fresh reading.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X